"It's genetic" vs. "It's a choice" is the Fallacy of the False Dichotomy in action. There are other possiblities as well.

Many traits are congenital, which means that one is born with the trait and has it throughout life. Most cannot be altered, and those that can are often only cosmetically altered, and require substantial medical intervention at that. And yet, congenital traits are not necessarily genetic.

Examples of non-genetic (or at least non-inheritable genetic) congenital conditions include (but are not limited to):

• Harelip, Cleft Palate,etc.• Spina Bifida and other neural tube defects (caused by insufficient folate in the pregnant mother's diet).• Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS ― caused by alcohol imbibed by the pregnant mother)• Thalidomide Babies (caused by the mother having used the otherwise mostly harmless pharmaceutical Thalidomide)• Any of a number of birth defects caused by the mother having contracted Rubella aka "German measles during pregnancy.• Any of a number of birth defects caused by Rh[esus] blood factor incompatibility between the mother and the fetus (the reason that blood tests are often required for a marriage license, to see if the husband is Rh+ and the wife is Rh− ― this one could be considered technically genetic and in a sense inherited, but is not caused by the direct expression of inherited genes).• Retrolental Fibroplasia (not strictly congenital, but happens very shortly after birth in premies only, and well before normal full-term birth would've happened ― the eyes and lungs are among the last things to develop prior to birth as neither will be needed until after birth, so premies often need oxygen under pressure, but this accelerates the growth of the still-growing retina, causing a column of retinal tissue to grow from the macula area often all the way to the back of the lens, resulting in lifelong blindness ― still a life-long condition that cannot easily be corrected that does not arise from genetics)

If there is a gay gene, then the 'phobes should get 100% behind gay marriage if they want to lessen the incidence of homosexual behavior.

Yeah, but that's like saying "The Pro-Lifers should advocate for sex education and easy access to contraception to reduce the number of abortions." Logical, and yet they never seem to get behind such efforts.

The idea that ANYTHING in the human experience can be whittled down to "nature OR nurture" (i.e. genetic OR choice) is just too ridiculous for words. To me, anyway. And yet, people keep trying, trying, to prove that it's a floor wax OR a dessert topping!

fusillade762:He said: 'The thing that's consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.'

Let's go out on a very, very long limb here and assume that it IS a choice: I still don't understand why anyone would give a fark.

In a free country we shouldn't. The thing is that religious conservatives don't actually care for freedom. They love to bandy the word about, but in reality they oppose it when it comes time to put it in to action.

SkorzenyNinja:I heard that Dr. Thaddeus Venture had been working hard, even missing rest and nourishment to isolate the gay gene. If it wasn't for all the protestors and hearings, he would have destroyed it.

He said: 'The thing that's consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.'

Let's go out on a very, very long limb here and assume that it IS a choice: I still don't understand why anyone would give a fark.

If any inherited characteristic that I find offensive in a fellow human being is an "affliction" - why not eliminate them all? Why stop with homosexuality? What about stupid people? What about ugly people? What about short people - they certainly have no legitimate reason to live. What about "inferior" races? If we are going to do this thing - lets not do it half assed.

TOSViolation:TheJoe03: So being so fat you can die and being mentally challenged is the same as being attracted to the same sex? Exactly what evidence do you have for any of the insane shiat you are saying? You claim to be using science but I haven't seen any on your part. You can think what you want about gay people, my issue is with you comparing being gay with cancer, Down's syndrome, morbid obesity, and all the other diseases you are comparing homosexuality with. I like brunette chicks, I guess I'm the same as someone with breast cancer.

So having Down Syndrome means you can lead a pretty normal life, get a job, have a family, etc. So, I guess fark them! We shouldn't try to find a cure for Down Syndrome because that might make them feel sad.

Well, fark you for trying to ignore the problem. The real problem is that people are assholes to people with Down Syndrome or who are homosexual. Caring enough to try to cure their affliction is NOT being an asshole.

Consider the amount of bloodshed, slavery, imperialism and war they've wrought upon the world, wouldn't you also say that we should be working on a cure for being white?After all, if we could cure whiteness, wouldn't we be just as amoral for not doing so as we would be if we failed to cure Down syndrome?When you look at the belligerence, territoriality, bigotry, and tiny, barely usable penises - what's to like? It seems like eliminating honkeyism would take priority over eliminating a minor defect like homosexuality.If you disagree, you are a hypocrite.

Subby must not have done much research.They found evidence for how it could be passed down a long time ago:

Homosexuality is a natural side-effect of genetic factors that help women to have more children, a study suggests.

A team led by Prof Andrea Camperio-Ciani, of Padua University, found that female maternal relatives of homosexual men seemed to have more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. There was no difference with female paternal relatives.

If the same gene increases the overall fertility of women, the gene gets passed down. Ta da.

timujin:The same way my brother and his wife, both with brown hair, had two red headed kids?

I was gonna say, subby's not too bright.

Also, it doesn't have to be a singular trigger or anything. Just a predisposition placing one at a different point on a spectrum.

/this would all be easier if people would realize that fact that gender isn't binary, but stupidity wins the day for now.//there's another dumbass thread just above, about to go green, that illustrates said point re: stupidity.

I don't see how identifying a "gay gene" at this point in history is a big plus for the GLBT community. For them and the others who accept them, such a finding would make little difference. But for those who don't accept them, the rhetoric would shift from "it's a choice" to "it's a defect", and somebody would start researching ways to "fix" it - this time with real science instead of prayer camps.

There's good odds that social acceptance will progress faster than medicine on this issue, but let's hope whoever finally cracks the code isn't a current-day Russian or Iranian genetic engineer employed by the state. Hardly anybody liked X-Men III and its vaccine plot, and that was just a metaphor.

TOSViolation:TheJoe03: TOSViolation: Aussie_As: TOSViolation: Aussie_As: TOSViolation: They also discovered the Sickle cell gene too, but that doesn't mean we celebrate the fact that people are afflicted with it and refuse to treat them for the condition.

There's a fairly clear genetic basis to race as well. Which ones are you thinking of "treating"?

Race is not an affliction. Homosexuality is an affliction much the same as Pica.

You're hilarious.

Your humor-detection is faulty. This is not a joke. No one should ever WANT to be gay. It's an affliction. No one should want to be agoraphobic or have OCD either. There are plenty of afflictions for which we have no good treatment or cure. Look how many people have cancer. Look how many people are morbidly obese. Very few people WANT to be morbidly obese, but still continue to overeat.

If there was a simple pill that would permanently cure breast cancer, Sickle cell, type 1 diabetes, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, or yes...HOMOSEXUALITY before (or after) symptoms show up, then the patient would be a fool not to take it (assuming no negative side effects).

There is no benefit to being gay. There are plenty of gay people who make perfectly good contributions to the world which would not suffer one bit if they weren't gay. It's not an asset.

Are you really comparing being gay with having cancer? Are you really that stupid? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt before I permanently mark you as a troll or just a big time moran. I see gays as a net positive since we are dealing with overpopulation and it helps to have less competition in the baby making game. BTW, sickle cell exists because it protects against malaria.

EXACTLY! The Sickle cell gene does exist for a scientific reason, but the negative effects FAR outweigh the benefits. Not having it is better than having it just the same as NOT being gay is better than being gay. If you really believe homosexuality is natural population control, then ...

Ladies and gentlemen, we have either one of the stupidest posts of all time, right here, or a troll of magnificent proportions.

Gyrfalcon:The idea that ANYTHING in the human experience can be whittled down to "nature OR nurture" (i.e. genetic OR choice) is just too ridiculous for words. To me, anyway. And yet, people keep trying, trying, to prove that it's a floor wax OR a dessert topping!

Nature doesn't always trump nurture. And there are freak combinations of circumstances wherein PeeWee Herman might win a fight with Mike Tyson. But that's not the way you want to be betting, generally. Almost every case I know of where kids were adopted and I knew who the bio parents, or at least mom, were, the kid ended up not only physically- which is kinda obvious, but emotionally and in behaviour like his or her bio parents.

Several theories exist on how something like homosexuality, which ostensibly reduces the chances of successive reproduction, can be passed on genetically.

1. Gay genes are believed by some to increase fertility in the female relatives of the gay men (and women). This means that the genes are not being passed on by gays and lesbians but by their sisters and their cousins and their aunts.

2. Gays tend to have sex earlier as they struggle with self-esteem and their sexuality. This means they start reproducing earlier. They may also, if closeted, have more children during the reproductive years. Keeps the wife busy and possibly happy. There's an old saying "Lucky the woman who has a homosexual husband". They are attentive, sympathetic, good with children and fooling around behind your back. You may be showered with guilt gifts and he'll never look at your women friends or do it with your mother or sister.

3. Don't forget bisexuals. Exclusive gays are even rarer than exclusive heterosexuals. Bisexual men may father more children.

4. Bisexual and gay women don't have any problem having children. They can always find a man who wants to do it with a lesbian or two lesbians. In many species of birds and animals, gay or lesbian couples are scandalously common. In fact, homosexuality is scandalously common in many thousands of species. Scientists suspect that it has utility and thus promotes the survival and propagation of the species. Numerous theories are current.

5. There is an apparent connection between birth order and the probability of being gay. With or without gay genes, being gay may be congenital. The immune system of women is poorly understood but it sometimes goes wonky. This is more likely to happen with a male fetus. The risk of problems increases with the number of sons a woman has had, so health problems in younger sons of large families is more likely. It is also more likely for them to be gay.

In short, large families with many boys are more likely to produce gay and bisexual sons. Psychiatrists explain this in terms of psychology, but geneticists and doctors lean towards physical explanations.

With women carrying a gay gene predisposed to producing more children by fecundity, with gay men taking more interest in child-welfare, with more gays being born in large families, you can begin to see why the fact that religious conservatives outbreed liberal unbelievers might not eliminate gays, lesbians, bisexuals and other sexual minority groups from the world.

It's a sort of cuckoo in the nest effect. The more conservatives breed, the more children they have rebelling against their damn fool belief systems and their inordinate disciplinary measures. Also, the more gays there are.

Mother Nature is sneaky and she pulls some real fast ones. Scientists aren't even sure that natural selection always works to eliminate anti-reproductive genes. As a rule, if a gene is not healthy, it is eliminated, but given the way natural selection works, some pretty stupid genes seem to survive because natural selection fail to work. For example, some of the steps necessary to eliminate a bad gene may actually make matters worse, so the mutations tend to be conserved. Think about politics: how many good ideas can't be put into practice because the steps necessary to realize reforms are contrary to vested interests who will kick up a royal stink if you try to implement changes one logical step at a time?

In short, homosexuality could be one of those things that you'd have to do serious damage to your chances of reproducing in order to eliminate.

Take Roman Catholics--they produce priests and nuns--celebate children. For centuries the number of religious orders and members has been pretty constant--as has the percentage of homosexuals. But if you wanted to increase population growth by removing celibacy from the vows of priests and nuns, you'd have to fight the church. And who would force the brothers and sisters of the priests and nuns to have too many children to compensate for the losses to the clergy? Roman Catholic countries are not only draining off a lot of "surplus population" to maintain a celibate clergy, but they are draining the smartest and the best. Many of whom are homosexuals, since the IQ of homosexuals seems to be a bit higher than the average of heterosexuals.

In theory, Roman Catholic countries ought to be getting stupider fast, but although their IQ seems a bit lower, the clergy do the work of the intellectuals in a Protestant or Muslim society, and they aren't that much less likely to father children than intellectuals are in any society.

Like homosexuals, celibates of other kinds may compensate in ways that keep the population up. Rich celibate aunts and uncles contribute largely to child care, education, medical bills, etc. They are available to baby-sit. They can give references to their cronies thanks to nepotism. And so forth.

In short, homosexuals have no problem reproducing. They just farm it out to the breeding stock.

From the point of view of a conservative, learning that their children are more likely to become atheist, gay, or liberal looks like bad news, but it maintains a social, political and genetic balance that is probably a good thing, all things considered. And what can they do? They can't morally abort fetuses because there's a good chance they won't be the spitting image of Momma and Poppa. They can't exercise birth control. They can't even use the RC approved rhythm method, because having fewer children runs contrary to all their beliefs and instincts.

From their point of view, gays, liberals and unbelievers are bad things. It's hard to see why a Loving Providence would allow them and the fact that Nature does just means shame, shame on Mother Nature. But you can see the fix they are in. They CAN'T eliminate the genetic, social or political causes of things they disapprove of because the system hits back. It's self-regulating and although it's not optimal from an ideological point of view, it is nearly impossible to shift without destroying the system altogether.

Most Americans consider themselves conservatives and by this they mean a dozen different things, but they can't eliminate the things they hate without falling into a tyranny they hate and fear more than sin and liberalism. You could, in principle, kill gays and lesbians, but you'd have to chuck democracy and human rights and religious charity to do so.

Every conservative has a reactionary to his right and a commie to his left. There's no room for movement on many issues. It's a losing battle, and if it were won it would be a Pyrrhic victory, worse than defeat.

Relax. "Sin" is as natural to man as water is to a fish. Stop trying to be a bird-man.

As the great mathematician and theologian said. "Man is neither an angel nor a beast. He who wishes to make man an angel, makes him a beast." "Qui veut faire l'ange, fait la bête." In French, it is a pun on beast and imbecile or fool.

TOSViolation:jso2897: If any inherited characteristic that I find offensive in a fellow human being is an "affliction" - why not eliminate them all? Why stop with homosexuality? What about stupid people? What about ugly people? What about short people - they certainly have no legitimate reason to live. What about "inferior" races? If we are going to do this thing - lets not do it half assed.

At what point did I even give the most remote suggestion that I am IN ANY WAY "offended" by any of the types of people I have mentioned? Try to pull your head out of your ass if you want to have a discussion. Since you obviously will not accept any response other than an unequivocal, "Homosexuality is GREAT," I think we're done here.

Goodnight to you. With any luck, you can sleep on this, get your emotional overreactions out of the way, then come back to read over this objectively. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

I'm just going to sit back, and hope they can find a cure for whatever genetic defects cause any of us strife.

Yeah, well, I'm pretty sure homosexuality isn't one of those. It's too bad you don't have the intellectual honesty or moral courage to answer the question that you yourself raised - but that is typical of trolls who say stupid thing to get attention, and then discover that have made themselves look stupid. The more you rant at me and call me names, the more you fail. Please proceed.

TOSViolation:Aussie_As: Right, now we're getting somewhere. You are now defining an affliction as being something that makes it hard to have children. I really wish you'd explained this earlier.

So gay people who have the same genes as other gay people but who repress their sexuality and have kids (as literally millions around the world do) are not afflicted? But they're passing on their genes. To a whole new generation of kids who, according to you, want nothing less than to be gay. But this is fine because to be gay they have to not have kids so they're not gay?

I told you you're hilarious but you wouldn't believe me.

I'm sorry. If you had explained that you have the sense and logic of my wall, I'd have just turned around and had the debate directly.

AFFLICTION:

1: the state of being afflicted2: the cause of persistent pain or distress

In other words, "shiat that is wrong with you that farks up your life."

Was I clear enough there?

Being allergic to peanuts doesn't mean you should just give up on life, but it does really fark up your life in many ways. Being gay does, regardless of how little you may want to believe it, have a negative impact on one's ability to have a normal life. I've already defined "normal" as being able to procreate with your chosen spouse to directly pass on your own genes (before or after any corrective treatments have been applied) to your offspring who will carry on as your legacy when you die.

If you don't believe in that definition of "normal", then we have nothing further to talk about. Go become a Scientologist, and tell the rest of the world we're all wrong about everything.

You're just making it up now. Forget decades of good biology, any biological definition of 'normal' has to give way to your stupidity for no reason you've cited. Just one example off the top of my head where biology disagrees massively with your definition of normal is the reproduction of bees. Worker bees, according to you, are the perfect picture of grotesque abnormality. These same creatures are massively responsible for plant and particularly crop fertilisation and large chunks of our environment and just about our entire food chain would collapse without them.

You're either stupid or, as I have already suggested, not stupid but bigotted.

TOSViolation:Aussie_As: Right, now we're getting somewhere. You are now defining an affliction as being something that makes it hard to have children. I really wish you'd explained this earlier.

So gay people who have the same genes as other gay people but who repress their sexuality and have kids (as literally millions around the world do) are not afflicted? But they're passing on their genes. To a whole new generation of kids who, according to you, want nothing less than to be gay. But this is fine because to be gay they have to not have kids so they're not gay?

I told you you're hilarious but you wouldn't believe me.

I'm sorry. If you had explained that you have the sense and logic of my wall, I'd have just turned around and had the debate directly.

AFFLICTION:

1: the state of being afflicted2: the cause of persistent pain or distress

In other words, "shiat that is wrong with you that farks up your life."

Was I clear enough there?

Being allergic to peanuts doesn't mean you should just give up on life, but it does really fark up your life in many ways. Being gay does, regardless of how little you may want to believe it, have a negative impact on one's ability to have a normal life. I've already defined "normal" as being able to procreate with your chosen spouse to directly pass on your own genes (before or after any corrective treatments have been applied) to your offspring who will carry on as your legacy when you die.

If you don't believe in that definition of "normal", then we have nothing further to talk about. Go become a Scientologist, and tell the rest of the world we're all wrong about everything.

Public Savant:I'm sure a lot of homosexuals just are that way from birth, but I'd wager that a lot more just sorta end up gay because of other circumstances - especially the 'I want to be different' crowd that's just looking for an excuse as to why they haven't felt normal their whole life.

I don't care if you're gay, but if you feel it's necessary to flaunt that information to me for no good reason or you're behaving in a stupid stereotypical way, I will put chilipowder in your jar of vaseline.

Kinda like how you joined "The Tards". What's the sex like there? Not what you are interested in, or expect I'd wager.

By "caring enough to try to cure their affliction," I do NOT mean psychological torture, electroshock "therapy" or any other asinine thing people have tried in the past. If scientists can find a retro-virus-genetic-fixing-serum they can inject into a baby with Down Syndrome (or dwarfism, Progeria, or whatever) that would cause them to develop normally (or even possibly some amazing new thing that would reverse the issues in an adult), then that would be a great thing. There are people researching the limb regeneration features of some animals to see if they can come up with a way for humans to regrow missing limbs or other organs. Imagine the medical beds from Elysium where you just lay down, and whatever is broken gets fixed. It would not be inhumane to be able to correct homosexuality that way.

In truth, I think it would be great if such a device could help those with gender identity disorder. Rather than mutilating their bodies to cosmetically appear to be the gender they feel they should be, they could ACTUALLY be converted to a real XX or XY that they feel they should be.

Acting like this isn't a real affliction doesn't help anyone.

Hey - I'm all in favor of "curing" everything that's wrong with everybody -- but let's start with you first.

* On a global scale, the sickle cell gene has far more benefit than cost. Just not for carriers who aren't exposed to malaria. So your protestation otherwise is crap, and demonstrably so.

* "Affliction" does not mean just whatever you want it to. Comparing being gay with having Pica, a psychological condition, or Downs Syndrome, a chromosomal condition, is flawed not least because both Pica and Downs create side-effects which require treatment and/or support to manage 'normally' in society. Same is true for morbid obesity, another example you tried. Gay people are and always have been all around us managing quite well without such support. You'd be surprised at who is/was gay and is just very, very quiet about it. Just because they are not out does not mean they are not gay. Being gay used to be defined as an affliction, then modern science started happening and we got over it (except for yourself obviously).

* "Ask any kid who starts having homosexual feelings. I'm pretty sure they'll tell you they don't want them." is less and less true as less and less people hate gay people or write the things you do about them.

* Conclusion of the above: you're a bigot. Why not just come out and admit it? Not fashionable sure but at least you're not a lying sack of horseshiat, which you're doing a great impression of currently.

fusillade762:He said: 'The thing that's consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.'

Let's go out on a very, very long limb here and assume that it IS a choice: I still don't understand why anyone would give a fark.

This.

Why the hell is it anyone's business whether soneone is gay or not?

Busybodies need to keep their religion, opinions, and judgements out of everyone else's bedroom.

fusillade762:He said: 'The thing that's consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.'

Let's go out on a very, very long limb here and assume that it IS a choice: I still don't understand why anyone would give a fark.

You don't understand there to be a rational reason.

Every reason I've seen is based on a rape argument. If that person believes a female's looks, dress, & behavior justify, even if in a small part, a rape, then that person (usually a straight man) believes homosexual males will rape him as well. He also thinks that homosexual females will also behave this way and rape straight females.

This same argument goes for people thinking homosexuals are pedophiles. Straight men look at young girls, and, using the same rape argument, think that the homosexuals will go after young boys in the same way.

And when you hear these points over and over again, it just reinforces your opinion.

But if you don't believe women ever "ask" for or "deserve" to be raped, all this thinking is irrational to you (and congratulations).

ciberido:AppleOptionEsc: strangeluck: While I think that being gay is due to genetics, I just can't take the article seriously due to it being the Daily Fail.

But on the serious side here, this does make me consider that scientists, if they really have figured out which gene causes teh gay, there's gonna be someone trying to use that to make what they think is a cure.

Imagine the stories, people being forced to get the cure by homophobic relatives.

While scientific curiosity is great, they should just leave some things alone.

Nothing wrong with teh gay.

Devil's Advocate: Psychopathy or some such other disease, such as Parkinson's. Even farther, using Star Trek logic; making people smarter, or aborting mentally defective babies.

That's not exactly science fiction. Eugenics goes back at least 130 years, and arguably longer depending on how exactly you define the term. Aborting female fetuses because the parents want a male child is a serious issue in many countries that is likely to get worse before it gets better.

All -- when you work backwards to the causal issue -- predicated on the outdated notion of intergenerational transfer of wealth. The inheritance anachronism needs to go bye-bye, just as slavery went.

/*prethwarting effort for any illiterates* no, i'm not saying inheritance is slavery DHURR. only that they're both outdated socioeconomic institutions.//not referring in any way to you or anything you said, ciberido, just to be clear. (=///... just... always have to preface things around here, because illiteracy

Aussie_As:Not sure how you define 'sex hormones' exactly but what evidence is there to support your statement about them?

Plenty of experimental evidence on animal models going back decades. Sexual patterning in mammals (including nonhuman primates) is primarily determined by a brief but intense spike in testosterone levels in the fetal or neonatal animal (the exact timing varies by species). Suppressing or inducing a testosterone spike during this critical window can reliably determine the gender behaviors of the animal, while giving a similar spike during a different period of time will not.

Human male fetuses also show the same testosterone pulse, the only time they will have substantial levels of testosterone before puberty, though of course for ethical reasons you can't do the same experimental interventions and conclusively prove this pulse is the main determiner of gender identity.

Still, it will be interesting to see what the function of these genes are. For example, do they code for one or more of the receptors or signal transduction proteins that would be activated by testosterone, do they code for enzymes used in hormone synthesis, etc.

Sum Dum Gai:As to how it gets passed down: many genes have multiple effects, and even the gender patterning of the brain has many different results - not just sexual orientation, but also the tendencies towards aggression versus compassion, etc. A very, very heterosexual male who ends up killing or abandoning his offspring is not genetically advantageous.

Plus, since the genes involved would be related to sex hormones, it's very likely they have different effects in men and women. For example, a gene that increased the odds of male homosexuality but also increased female fertility might be overall very advantageous for the species. There's certainly no single "gay gene", but, like height, it's a combination of many genes forming a spectrum.

Not sure how you define 'sex hormones' exactly but what evidence is there to support your statement about them? Are you running the old crap about gay guys having more estrogen or something? Totally debunked.

Aside from some pretty poor science behind some of the statements you make, your overall conclusion seems likely. It is entirely likely that a range of genes and environmental (nutrition/hormones/stress in the womb, metabolic and pschological incidents in development) would all be at play.

Bottom line is if your parents hate the fact you're gay, they can only blame themselves. They are responsible for all of the genetic and most of the environmental factors which would have played a role. Any dickhead who's all "How dare you be gay, get out of this house" to their gay kid is blaming entirely the wrong person.

As to how it gets passed down: many genes have multiple effects, and even the gender patterning of the brain has many different results - not just sexual orientation, but also the tendencies towards aggression versus compassion, etc. A very, very heterosexual male who ends up killing or abandoning his offspring is not genetically advantageous.

Plus, since the genes involved would be related to sex hormones, it's very likely they have different effects in men and women. For example, a gene that increased the odds of male homosexuality but also increased female fertility might be overall very advantageous for the species. There's certainly no single "gay gene", but, like height, it's a combination of many genes forming a spectrum.

fusillade762:He said: 'The thing that's consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.'

Let's go out on a very, very long limb here and assume that it IS a choice: I still don't understand why anyone would give a fark.